Chiming in WAY late, but just joined up. . .

 

Chaff can be used in a deceptive role as well, US and some other NATO forces use MK 214 and MK 216 NATO Sea Gnat rounds. The 214 is the stuff used for "seduction" tactics or against incoming missiles, it's radar cross section is smaller but much stronger to lure missiles into the chaff cloud rather than at the ship.

 

The 216 is for "Deception" which has a much larger radar, yet weaker cross section and is used prior to the enemy operator firing his/her missiles in hopes that they'll select one of the ghosts to fire their weapons at.

 

I'm gathering from CV32's comments above that the game at this point simply has chaff represented in one basic form for point defense, but in the future this could be something worthy of consideration. I'm not sure just how far down in the weeds this game is intended to go, but I thought at a minimum this would be good info.

 

Sean

Yes, it'd be nice to be able to simulate all of the various little intricacies and terminology of offboard soft kill expendables: confusion, dump mode seduction, centroid mode seduction, distraction, range gate pull off, walk off, bloom time, etc, etc.

 

Unfortunately, we cannot (as yet) model the ability to launch chaff/flare or decoy expendables in any 'standoff' fashion, i.e. launch them away from the ship. Likewise, we cannot create 'ghost' targets.

 

The present model is rudimentary; it simply reduces the hit probability percentage of an attacking weapon.

 

Knowing your background, Hoydie17, I'd appreciate and welcome your commentary on this in particular and, of course, the subject in general.

Yes, it'd be nice to be able to simulate all of the various little intricacies and terminology of offboard soft kill expendables: confusion, dump mode seduction, centroid mode seduction, distraction, range gate pull off, walk off, bloom time, etc, etc.

 

Unfortunately, we cannot (as yet) model the ability to launch chaff/flare or decoy expendables in any 'standoff' fashion, i.e. launch them away from the ship. Likewise, we cannot create 'ghost' targets.

 

The present model is rudimentary; it simply reduces the hit probability percentage of an attacking weapon.

 

Knowing your background, Hoydie17, I'd appreciate and welcome your commentary on this in particular and, of course, the subject in general.

 

Understand completely, just feeling things out a little bit, bare with me as a chip the rust off. . . . . *shudders thinking about those days again*

Unfortunately, we cannot (as yet) model the ability to launch chaff/flare or decoy expendables in any 'standoff' fashion, i.e. launch them away from the ship

 

Mmmm, not, but we can simulate it with short range of the chaff/flare/ecm, I suppose. i.e., 1,5-3 n.m., or so.

Unfortunately, we cannot (as yet) model the ability to launch chaff/flare or decoy expendables in any 'standoff' fashion, i.e. launch them away from the ship

 

Mmmm, not, but we can simulate it with short range of the chaff/flare/ecm, I suppose. i.e., 1,5-3 n.m., or so.

 

That's possible, though it does turn the chaff/flare into an 'offensive' jamming weapon within that range envelope. Acceptable side effect, perhaps.

Unfortunately, we cannot (as yet) model the ability to launch chaff/flare or decoy expendables in any 'standoff' fashion, i.e. launch them away from the ship

 

Mmmm, not, but we can simulate it with short range of the chaff/flare/ecm, I suppose. i.e., 1,5-3 n.m., or so.

 

That's possible, though it does turn the chaff/flare into an 'offensive' jamming weapon within that range envelope. Acceptable side effect, perhaps.

 

The MK 216 round IS rocket propelled, but even then, it's range wasn't quite a mile from the ship before bursting. But that was the entire idea was to create 2 nearly identical "blips" on the radar screen fairly close together and confuse the weapon operator as to which one was the real one prior to firing. (A sharp operator could give an educated guess to wind direction and speed and compare that to the "ghost" target though.)

 

Would it be possible to have the chaff round fired, and then be represented by another ship symbol, maybe in a different color that disappears after a set amount of time? That way when the AI or opponent selects a target to fire at, he will see two ship icons, and then it becomes a 50-50 chance on which one he/she selects?

 

Am I getting too in depth again. . . ?

Would it be possible to have the chaff round fired, and then be represented by another ship symbol, maybe in a different color that disappears after a set amount of time? That way when the AI or opponent selects a target to fire at, he will see two ship icons, and then it becomes a 50-50 chance on which one he/she selects?

 

I don't think it is currently possible, but certainly something for the wish list.

 

Am I getting too in depth again. . . ?

 

Not at all. Though we're limited by the current model, we do have lofty ambitions and its always useful to brainstorm about the possibilities.

Unfortunately, we cannot (as yet) model the ability to launch chaff/flare or decoy expendables in any 'standoff' fashion, i.e. launch them away from the ship

 

Mmmm, not, but we can simulate it with short range of the chaff/flare/ecm, I suppose. i.e., 1,5-3 n.m., or so.

 

That's possible, though it does turn the chaff/flare into an 'offensive' jamming weapon within that range envelope. Acceptable side effect, perhaps.

 

 

With a limited ammo supply and a lower PH chance, I don't really see a problem with it TBH. So we treat it like a very short range PD gun...the idea behind these systems is to confused the seeker and make them miss...in essence this is a shoot down, as it does render the missile useless. The one problem would be the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft...the altitude band and range would have to be severely limited to prevent this.

 

Just some rambling thoughts on the matter.

With a limited ammo supply and a lower PH chance, I don't really see a problem with it TBH. So we treat it like a very short range PD gun...the idea behind these systems is to confused the seeker and make them miss...in essence this is a shoot down, as it does render the missile useless. The one problem would be the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft...the altitude band and range would have to be severely limited to prevent this.

 

Just some rambling thoughts on the matter.

 

Would the missile actually be destroyed though, or would it just miss, fly through the chaff cloud and possibly engage another target further downrange?

Would the missile actually be destroyed though, or would it just miss, fly through the chaff cloud and possibly engage another target further downrange?

 

Well, this is always a subject in the real world of great debate. Sure the "soft kill" keeps the missile from hitting YOUR ship, but the missile seeker will continue to search for another target until it crashes into something or runs out of fuel.

 

Modern day SWO's (Surface Warfare Officers) prefer the romantic idea of a hard-kill because they can brag about how great SSDS and AEGIS are later on, but unless you're on a carrier or amphib with RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) you're only real defense if SM-2's miss will be softkill such as jamming, expendable decoys. CIWS is good for targets that plod along on a relatively straight course towards the ship, but for many contemporary ASCM's, CIWS cannot engage weapons with high-G terminal maneuvers such as an SS-N-22.

 

The thing is, some contemporary systems lock on to their chosen target shortly before they go "terminal" and if somehow they manage to miss their target due to softkill techniques, they'll have very little, if any, flight time remaining before they crash anyways, such as the Novator Alfa. So even if flythrough does occur, there is a reasonable chance that the missile may crash seconds after it misses it's intended target.

The thing is, some contemporary systems lock on to their chosen target shortly before they go "terminal" and if somehow they manage to miss their target due to softkill techniques, they'll have very little, if any, flight time remaining before they crash anyways, such as the Novator Alfa. So even if flythrough does occur, there is a reasonable chance that the missile may crash seconds after it misses it's intended target.

 

Yep, and we know a similar possibility exists when using hard kill systems. You may manage to disable or 'destroy' the incoming missile with your last ditch CIWS or point defense missile system, but the explosion, fragments or forward momentum of the incomer is enough to shred your superstructure; exposed sensors, gear or personnel, etc. We don't model that either.

How does one determine the range of ECM?

 

The ALQ-99 on the Prowler lists 25.0 NM for the pod. Is this the maximum range at which any effect will be had on enemy sensors?

 

If so, what does being closer do? Increase the chances of "successful" jamming on an enemy sensor, missile etc?

 

Presumably multiple prowlers boost the effectiveness of the jamming within the 25 NM radius?

 

Thanks

How does one determine the range of ECM?

 

The ALQ-99 on the Prowler lists 25.0 NM for the pod. Is this the maximum range at which any effect will be had on enemy sensors?

 

If so, what does being closer do? Increase the chances of "successful" jamming on an enemy sensor, missile etc?

 

Presumably multiple prowlers boost the effectiveness of the jamming within the 25 NM radius?

 

Thanks

 

I'll try to explain, at least how I understand it.

 

Basically having multiple jammers really only helps if you have multiple jammer platforms, that is the 2 jammers platforms can then provide cover for each other.

 

Example: Jammer A alone can still be detected and locked onto. Jammer B when operating alone is the same, however if they are operating within range of each other they cover each other, making both harder to lock onto.

 

Another thing with Jamming is that jamming is not 100% radar blinding. Radars can still lock onto aircraft and missiles can still be fired. The Jammers should affect the to hit numbers of the missiles though.

 

TonyE probably knows a bit better on the nuts and bolts of it than I do though.

I'll try to explain, at least how I understand it.

 

Basically having multiple jammers really only helps if you have multiple jammer platforms, that is the 2 jammers platforms can then provide cover for each other.

 

Example: Jammer A alone can still be detected and locked onto. Jammer B when operating alone is the same, however if they are operating within range of each other they cover each other, making both harder to lock onto.

 

Another thing with Jamming is that jamming is not 100% radar blinding. Radars can still lock onto aircraft and missiles can still be fired. The Jammers should affect the to hit numbers of the missiles though.

 

TonyE probably knows a bit better on the nuts and bolts of it than I do though.

 

Thanks for your input, I'm aware that it's not 100% radar blinding. I'm more interested in the effective range. Can I have a Prowler orbit at 24.9 NM away from an enemy emitter and still get the full benefits of the jamming. I want to know how it's modelled. Presumably the 25 NM range on the ECM pod means that other friendlies must be within the 25 NM radius to get any kind of benefits from the jamming.

 

Will having the friendlies the Prowler is 'escorting' neart, say within 2 or 3 miles provide benefits?

 

I have feel for how this may work in "Real life" but thats not to say the sim is modelled anything like that.

Some others previous conclusions about this topic here:

http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?s...entry9465

Some of my personal deductions in the same place:

I've do another test. The range of the active radar ECM sembles ever 210 n.m.

If the ECM is installed in a surface ship or similar, the range is affected also by the radar horizon (circa 26 n.m., sensible to the height of the ships' masts, I supposse), if the victim/jammee is also at sea level, if the victim is airborne, his height also matter (i.e: with a ship ECM you can jamm a plane flying at High at 210 n.m., but no if the plane is flying at Low a 210 n.m.).

I supposse the victim is jammee because at 210 n.m. range a lightning bolt icon is positionated over the victim.